Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Have you learned about Compton scattering yet, Micheal?

Have you learned how to spell my name correctly RC?

Hint: A comes before E. :)

Honestly RC, your approach here seems to be "If at first you don't succeed, spam, spam your own posts again. Is that your plan?
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
No calculation was needed.

Right, it's just a "looks like a bunny" claim apparently. :)

RC, the images he was looking at were from 1929, not 2012. The 'great debate' about the existence of external "nebula" (not even called "galaxies") had only taken place 10 years earlier.

A handwave based on *primitive* (by today's standards) technology is not "science". Zwicky's whole point in that claims was to give himself a reason to promote *his own* alternative theory! :)
 
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟120,483.00
Faith
Atheist
...usual photon rant...
classical kinetic energy
Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy

...
Peratt was *my* reference, one that *defines* an electrical discharge *in plasma*!
...usual fantasy about what Peratt stated...
...usual fantasy about what Dungey stated!...
...usual rants snipped...
Now you you think you have exclusive rights to cite Peratt :D!
Anyone can cite Peratt and show that you are wrong about what he wrote:
Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma (unless you do a ridiculous quote mining of Peratt's definition)! The 'electrical discharge' term used in MR is not a discharge :doh: and is obsolete!

You have written your usual dumb demand that I read Peratt's book.
I do not have to do this because you have quoted everything that he stated about your fantasy that he defined about "electrical dicharges in plasma".
He says that you are wrong.
11th January 2011: Do you know the difference between a title and a definition?
Still unable to know the difference!
5th February 2011: Why does Peratt's page talk about aurora and lightning?
7th December 2010: Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges?
26th September 2011: Where is the discussion of 'electrical discharges in plasma' in any textbook?

The simple fact is the electrical discharges (as Peratt states) happen through the breakdown of a dielectric medium like air or a solid (or a liquid). These are the examples that Peratt gives. Peratt never gave a definition of electrical discharges in plasma. Peratt never gave any examples of electrical discharges in plasma. Thus it is a lie to say that he defined or describes electrical discharges in plasma.
But you can make me a liar by answering the questions above - after all you have read his book :p!

Peratt would not be so ignorant since he knows basic physics such as:
There is no dielectric medium in plasma and so actual electrical discharges (like his examples) in plasma are impossible.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟120,483.00
Faith
Atheist
Right, it's just a "looks like a bunny" claim apparently. :)
RC, the images he was looking at were from 1929, not 2012.
Wrong: It is "using the expertise of from years of experience and knowing the actual physics to compare images" logic.

The 'it looks like bunnies in the cloud' logic that you use is based on denying basic physics starting with the temperature of the material emitting the light in the images. It is actual bunnies with fur and fluffy ears that you see :p!

Well duh! Zwicky wrote in 1929 so he was looking at 1929 and before images!
You seem ignorant of the fact that there are astronommers today :p!
They (e.g. Ned Wright) still do not observe any difference in sharpness between images of near galaxies (e.g. ~100 million light years away) and the images of distant galaxies (e.g. ~10 000 million light years).
 
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟120,483.00
Faith
Atheist
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟120,483.00
Faith
Atheist
Readers of this thread may think that I am being unduely harsh when pointing out Michael's inability to understand (and quote mining) of Peratt's book.
The full text of the "Electrίcal Discharges in Cosmic Plasma" section was posted on JREF:
11th January 2011: Peratt and Electrical Discharges in Cosmic Plasma
Originally Posted by Peratt
1 .5 Electrίcal Discharges in Cosmic Plasma
An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy . This generally occurs when the electromagnetic stress exceeds some threshold for breakdown that is usually detemined by small scale properties of the energy transmission medium. As such, discharges are local phenomena and are usually accompanied by violent prαesses such as rapid heating, ionization, the creation of pinched and filamentary conduction channels, particle acceleration, and the generation of prodigious amounts of electromagnetic radiatiοη.

As an example, multi-terawatt pulsed-power generators on earth rely on strong electrical discharges to produce intense particle beams, Χrays, and microωανes. Megajoules of energy are electrically stored in capacitor banks, whose volume may encompass 250 m3 . This energy is the n
transferred to a discharge regίοn, located many meters from the source, via a transmission line. The discharge region, or load, encompαsses at most a few cubic centimeters of space, and is the site of high-variability, intense, electromagnetic radiation (Figure 1 .2).

On earth, lightning is another example of the discharge mechanism at work where electrostatic energy is stored in clouds whose volume may be of the order of 3,000 km3. This energy is released in a few cubic meters of the discharge channel.

The aurora is a discharge caused by the bombardment of atoms in the upper atmosphere by 1–20 keV electrons and 200 keV ions spirιlling down the earth's magnetic field lines at high latitudes . Here, the electric field accelerating the charged particles derιves from plasma moving across the earth's dipole magnetic field lines many earth radii into the magnetosphere. The potential energy generated by the ρlasma mοtion is fed to the upper atmοsphere by multi-megaampere Birkeland currents (Chαρter 2) that comprίse a transmission line, 50,000 kilometers in length, as theγ flow into and out of the discharge regions at the polar horm(Figure 1 .5). The generator region may encompass 1012 - 1013 km3 while the total discharge volume can be 109 -1010 km3 . The stored or generated and radiated energies and powers versus linear dimension (approximately, the cube root of the volume) of several cosmic plasma discharge objects are shown in Figure 1.19.
As you can see there is no mention of electrical discharges in plasma in the section other than in the title (which is not a definition whatever Michael thinks!).

The poster (tusenfem) then goes theough the rest of the book and finds
So, basically Peratt is rather inconsequent in his usage of discharge, as it can either mean the discharging of a stored charge in a capacitor like situation in a circuit, or it can be a discharge with break down.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian

The first link never mentions photons, and the second one is *yourself*, not an *external* reference that claims that photons have no kinetic energy. Do you even know what a valid (one that actually supports your claim) *external* reference is RC?

Is that something like 5 days and counting and still no *external* support?

Now you you think you have exclusive rights to cite Peratt :D!

A creationist citing that has never read Darwin's work, but uses a sentence from his work in an effort to claim that evolutionary theory *cannot* happen, when it says *exactly the opposite*, isn't really a rational individual. That's essentially where you stand by trying to cite Peratt's *definition* of electrical discharges in plasma as a reference that claims electrical discharges in plasma are "impossible". You're not even quoting him rationally and you've never read his book!

Anyone can cite Peratt and show that you are wrong about what he wrote:

He wrote nothing of the sort RC. Neither did the Russians. Neither did the Japanese. Dungey didn't claim discharges in plasma are impossible. Bruce did not claim they were impossible. You're essentially just "making up facts" to suit yourself at this point.


You have written your usual dumb demand that I read Peratt's book.

An atheist that comes to a "Christian" website is typically given the advice to read the "Bible", particularly if they fancy themselves as a "skeptic" of the religion. You need not educate yourself on any topic RC, but then why are you here in *this* thread engaging me on the topic of plasma physics? You can't "understand" material without reading it RC.

I do not have to do this because you have quoted everything that he stated about your fantasy that he defined about "electrical dicharges in plasma".

You apparently have a "fantasy" that you know more about plasma physics that Dungey, Bruce, Alfven, Birkeland, Giovanelli, the Russians and the Japanese put together, without *ever reading a book on the topic of plasma physics*. Talk about fantasies. You have your own island apparently. :)

He says that you are wrong.

No, he says *you* are wrong, along with the Russians, the Japanese, Dungey, Bruce, yada, yada, yada.
The simple fact is the electrical discharges (as Peratt states) happen through the breakdown of a dielectric medium like air or a solid (or a liquid).

They *can* happen that way. They can also happen from *any* fast release of EM field energy, including "reconnection" as Dungey explained to you, not that you cared about what he actually said.

These are the examples that Peratt gives.

He gave *many* examples in the book RC, but you wouldn't know about because you refuse to educate yourself on this topic.

Peratt never gave a definition of electrical discharges in plasma.

Yes, he did:

1 .5 Electrίcal Discharges in Cosmic Plasma

An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy. This generally occurs when the electromagnetic stress exceeds some threshold for breakdown that is usually determined by small scale properties of the energy transmission medium. As such, discharges are local phenomena and are usually accompanied by violent prαesses such as rapid heating, ionization, the creation of pinched and filamentary conduction channels, particle acceleration, and the generation of prodigious amounts of electromagnetic radiation. As an example, multi-terawatt pulsed-power generators on earth rely on strong electrical discharges to produce intense particle beams, Χrays, and microωανes . Megajoules of energy are electrically stored in capacitor banks, whose volume may encompass 250 m^3 . This energy is then transferred to a discharge regίοn, located many meters from the source, vi α a transmission line.

The discharge region, or load, encompαsses at most a few cubic centimeters of space, and is the site of high-variability, intense, electromagnetic radiatιοη (Figure 1 .2) .On earth, lightning is another example of the discharge mechanism at work where electr-o-static energy is stored in clouds whose volume may be of the order of 3,000 km3. This energy is released in a few cubic meters of the discharge channel.

The aurora is a discharge caused by the bombardment of atoms in the upper atmosphere by 1–20 keV electrons and 200 keV ions spirιlling down the earth's magnetic field lines at high latitudes . Here, the electric field accelerating the charged particles derιves from plasma moving across the earth's dipole magnetic field lines many earth radii into the magnetosphere .

Peratt never gave any examples of electrical discharges in plasma.

People can read it for themselves RC. You can't rewrite history.

Thus it is a lie to say that he defined or describes electrical discharges in plasma.

The only lie is when you tell yourself you understand a book you've never read, and you know more the Dungey, Bruce, Birkeland the Russians and the Japanese put together on the topic of plasma physics, and electrical discharges in plasma.

But you can make me a liar by answering the questions above - after all you have read his book :p!

You're doing a fine job without my help RC.

You're an IT guy RC. You don't speak for astronomers like Dungey and physicists like Peratt. You only *think* you can, even though you've never read Peratt's work, and even though your statements are diametrically opposed to what Dungey and Bruce actually wrote! Wow! :doh:

Why should I believe the retired IT rather than the Russians and Japanese astronomers RC?
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Wrong: It is "using the expertise of from years of experience and knowing the actual physics to compare images" logic.

No, he was *selling* his *own theory* on redshift, and it was nothing more than a handwave based on 1929 technology! It was a bogus claim then, and it's a bogus claim now.

The 'it looks like bunnies in the cloud' logic that you use is based on denying basic physics starting with the temperature of the material emitting the light in the images.

Nobody denies any such thing. You spend more time *misrepresenting my statements* than you spend on the topic.

It is actual bunnies with fur and fluffy ears that you see :p!
No, that's you when you point at the sky and claim that your invisible dark friends did it.

Well duh! Zwicky wrote in 1929 so he was looking at 1929 and before images!

He provided *zip* in the way of a real argument RC, even by 1929 standards! He had *no* idea how large the galaxy was back then.

You seem ignorant of the fact that there are astronommers today :p!

I know you don't speak for them anymore than you speak for Peratt or Dungey or Bruce or Birkeland.

They (e.g. Ned Wright) still do not observe any difference in sharpness between images of near galaxies (e.g. ~100 million light years away) and the images of distant galaxies (e.g. ~10 000 million light years).

Quote him.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Michael: Are you going to nitpick aboput spelling, "micKeal"?

You'd think after *years* of going out of your way to play cyberstalker, you'd at least know how to spell my name. I guess I presume too much.

P.S. My name is not RC, RealityCheck01 :wave:!
You don't even have the courage to use your read name in cyberspace.

My plan is very simple: To see if you know what you are talking about, i.e. Compton scattering.
You have no such plan, and Holushko's model is not limited to Compton scattering in the first place! Did you ever find any legitimate errors in Holushko's paper or C# code? Of course not.

So far the answer is no because you cannot answer a question that is actually answered on thw Wikipedia page!
You show no signs of knowing anything about this topic. You still seem to think that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma. You still claim that photons have no kinetic energy. You've never read a book on this topic. You've never published any papers on any topics related to astronomy. Even still, in your own mind at least, you're the world's leading expert on plasma physics. Dungey, Giovanelli, Birkeland, Bruce, Peratt, the Russians and Japanese are all "cranks", "crackpots", yada, yada, yada.

I see a serious problem having a conversation about photon scattering with a guy that claims photons always have zero kinetic energy and who *steadfastly* refuses to recant that false statement. That's the serious problem RC. Arguing with haters is never a rational thing to do.

When can I expect you to recant your claim, or provide an *external* reference that A) mentions the term photon, and B) claims they always have zero kinetic energy? Let me guess....when Pagen hades freezes over?
 
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟120,483.00
Faith
Atheist
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian

It never mentions a photons or it's kinetic energy state RC. Even creationists cite better external links than you do.


Do you even comprehend the concept of a "debate"? Repeating yourself rather than providing an external reference as requested is a "no no" in debate RC. You're *supposed* to either retract your false claim, or show an *external* link that supports your claim that photons always have a zero amount of kinetic energy. You've not done either. You haven't provided an external link that actually supports your false claim, and you haven't retracted the false claim! You're on your own private denial-go-round, with no end in sight!

You do not speak for a man who's book you've never read, and who's work you repeatedly misrepresent. You are also misrepresenting Dungey, Bruce, Birkeland, the Russians, the Japanese and everyone else you see fit.

Usual abysmal inability to back up assertions with evidence such as quotes or citations, Michael:

I handed you more than 6 authors that all claimed electrical discharges occur in plasma in the solar thread RC. You've provided *ZERO* to support your claims.


That just highlights an inability to distinguish a title from a definition :doh:.

That has to be the single lamest argument ever!:doh:

It wouldn't be so bad if you weren't claiming exactly the opposite of all those Russian and Japanese (and Western) astronomers and plasma physicists. Apparently you don't care what *anyone* else says, and you only intend to quote yourself forever and ever when asked to support your own claims.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟120,483.00
Faith
Atheist
...
Nobody denies any such thing. You spend more time *misrepresenting my statements* than you spend on the topic.
You really should read what you write in other threads where you claim to see a solid iron surface in light that is emitted from iron at a temperature of at least 160,000 K :clap:!
That is your 'I see bunnies in the clouds' logic that ignores the actual physics.

...Quote him.
What a short memory you have, Michael:
Errors in Tired Light Cosmology
There is no known interaction that can degrade a photon's energy without also changing its momentum, which leads to a blurring of distant objects which is not observed. The Compton shift in particular does not work.
How do you detect blurring of distant objects - by comparing to near objects!
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
You really should read what you write in other threads

You really should *try* to understand other people when they explain things to you, like electrical discharges in plasmas:

1963IAUS...16..115W Page 115
Space Science Reviews, Volume 17, Numbers 2-4 - SpringerLink
1974SvA....17..640V Page 640
1973SvA....16..662V Page 662
ScienceDirect.com - Advances in Space Research - Space observations of comets during solar flares: A possible explanation for comet brightness outbursts
The Sun from Space - Kenneth R. Lang - Google Books

All these authors all talk about electrical discharges in plasmas. Either they are all wrong, or one IT guy is wrong on the topic of electrical discharges in plasma. Guess who?
 
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟120,483.00
Faith
Atheist
You have no such plan,
You are lying - I stated what that plan is and it es going well:
My plan is very simple: To see if you know what you are talking about, i.e. Compton scattering.
So far the answer is no because you cannot answer a question that is actually answered on the Wikipedia page!

So far there is no sign that you can even read or understand a Wikipedia page!

Can you see a another problem with Compton scattering = tired light?

You show no signs of knowing anything about this topic.
...usual insults and rants snipped...
That is rich from a guy that cannot even show that he can read a Wikipedia page :p!

I know about Compton scattering from what I was first taught about at university. It is a standard part of solid state physics - my specialty! Of course that was many years ago so I took the time to refresh my knowledge, e.g. at Compton scattering. I also did not know its application in astonomy so I looked up some papers.

Which reminds me- you are due for the high school science level hint! The reminder is because the hint uses the simplest of the equipment that I used to demonstrate experiments when I was a teaching assistant to undergraduate physics students - an air table!

Hint 4: Michael, Consider 2 pucks A and B that will be collided on an air table. This is usually done in conservation of momentum experiments. There will be 2 experiments:
Experiment 1: Puck A will be slow moving and puck B will collide with it at a fast speed.
  • Describe in general terms what happens to pucks A and B.
Experiment 2: Puck A will be fast moving and puck B will collide with it at a slow speed.
  • Describe in general terms what happens to pucks A and B.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟120,483.00
Faith
Atheist
What a short memory you have as well :D:

My reply to that post: http://www.christianforums.com/t7688433-51/#post61578558

The point is simple - scattering clauses blurring of distant objects that astronomers observe, e.g. Zwinky, Ned Wright. Compton scattering is scattering!

Which reminds me - I should not trust the unsupported assertions of some random guy on the Web :p!
Michael, where are your citations of astronomers observing blurring of distant objects as expected for a cosmological redshift caused by scattering?
First asked 13 November 2012
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Michael, so let's get this straight...

Is the universe expanding or not? yes or no.

I have no direct evidence that the universe is expanding, but expansion (or contraction) is a logical possibility even in PC theory. I can't rule out expansion, but I can't rule it in either.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
What a short memory you have as well :D:

My reply to that post: http://www.christianforums.com/t7688433-51/#post61578558

Oh right, I forgot that your word is "IT gospel" apparently. :(

The point is simple - scattering clauses blurring of distant objects that astronomers observe, e.g. Zwinky, Ned Wright. Compton scattering is scattering!

Apparently everything you, Ned and Zwicky know about plasma redshift was learned in 1929, and that's where all your education on that topic ended. :(

Which reminds me - I should not trust the unsupported assertions of some random guy on the Web :p!

Well, this "random guy" has published papers related to astronomy and solar physics. I've actually *read* plasma physics texts books and my many of my beliefs are congruent with Alfven, Birkeland, Bruce, the Russians the Japanese, Dungey, Peratt, Giovanelli, etc. Your opinions are not congruent with literature on this topic, and your ignorance of photon kinetic energy is simply astounding! :doh: You can't find *any* external references that actually support your claims. Then again, you keep on repeating yourself, and nevermind those crackpot Russians.

Michael, where are your citations of astronomers observing blurring of distant objects as expected for a cosmological redshift caused by scattering?

Oh for crying out loud! Go find any paper that claims to be able to "see through" the center of our galaxy in the white light range of the spectrum RC. Your *oversimplification fallacy* won't fly!

First asked 13 November 2012

How long have I been waiting for external references for your photon claims? All I've seen so far is a website link that never mentioned a photon, and a link to *yourself*! Oy Vey! Five (or six) days and counting.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
You are lying - I stated what that plan is and it es going well:
My plan is very simple: To see if you know what you are talking about, i.e. Compton scattering.

I already know that you do not know what you're talking about as it relates to photon kinetic energy RC. I've been waiting (and so has your audience) and waiting and waiting for an external reference that never comes. So far you produced nothing but a WIKI link that never mentioned a photon or it's kinetic energy state, and a link to *yourself*. :( Wow! You have no right to judge me RC. You're not competent on this topic.

Compton scattering is *only one* of *lots* (you found more) types of photon plasma redshift that occurs in the lab. It would take nothing short of a *miracle* for those redshift mechanisms to *not* have any effect in space. You keep fixating on Compton scattering only because it's the *only* thing you can even take pot shots at. You effectively *ignored* Holushko's work, Ashmore's work, Brynjolfsson's work, Lerner's work, etc. That's all you and Ned can do apparently.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.